Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

ROFL!

Words mean things... and how PERFECT does the above demonstration get; in the science of reading Left-think, wherein the would-be 'contributor', prefaces its conclusion, by asking what difference does the subject make, to YOU or THEM? Which is the GEOMETRICAL CENTER of: SUBJECTIVE REASONING... only to close by implying that it's reasoning is the OPPOSITE OF THAT?

I'm all about the learnin'... so allow me to offer the Intellectually Less Fortunate, a lesson in perspective... When you are worried about how something will affect YOU... the species of reasoning you're applying in that consideration is SUBJECTIVE.

This, by way of comparison, to the circumstance wherein you are wondering 'How will this affect something BIGGER THAN JUST YOU... It may be your family... it may be your neighborhood, your company, Town, County, State of Nation. When you're considering THAT perspective, you are applying OBJECTIVE Reasoning.

Objective reasoning is what the Founders of the United States used, when they were designing our governance, it was what was being applied, when the Founders who framed and ratified the US Constitution.

Objectivism is what was being applied when the Founders explicitly rejected Socialism... choosing instead, the Constitutional Republic, which applied democratic representation.

And Objective reasoning is what was being applied, when the law was debated and passed, in every respective state, to forbid sodomy... ergo: to outlaw homosexuality. Because doing so precluded the normalization of the mental disorder that presents as sexual deviancy... and in so doing it precluded the normalization of reasoning which describes its subjective nature in painful detail, while claiming such is the GEOMETRIC OPPOSITE OF THAT.

See how that that works?

 

[Pop23]

I think I went into a bit more detail. That's ok coming from someone who approves of incest

What difference does someone fucking their sister make to me, or you? Oh right, none. You should learn to be rational and objective.

It's good to see you coming out in favor of incest.

Neither for nor against, but there is only one valid argument against, potential defective children, which isn't saying much.

Only effects opposite sex couples, never same sex.

Jeeez but you DO come up with some weird OPINIONS and then call them facts.

You know of a same sex couple that, by way of incest had a child born with a birth defect, or born at all

Do tell

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It is you that is arguing for it. If any two can marry then that means any two eh?

Yep, no compelling government interest in denying them.

Go ahead, express the compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.

You won't, you can't.

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

All people of good will use Marriage Equality for all marriages, straight or gay. That you can't accept that this is happening means nothing at all.

It's not marriage unless it's between a man and woman. That's the fact and the way it was forever up until very recent history where liberal fags decided to attempt to redefine it. If you deny that then you're a fag.

Your feelings define nothing, kid.

It's not feelings. It's fact. Find gay marriages a long time ago. They didn't exist because no one ever thought that culture would become this immoral. It's so disgusting that no one even thought about it or considered it.

Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.

No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

 

[Pop23]

Yep, no compelling government interest in denying them.

Go ahead, express the compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.

You won't, you can't.

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms.

Got it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are simply yelling, Superman, because Marriage Equality is a fact.

Throw all the mud you want, doesn't matter.

Yelling would be bold or caps. I agree it is happening but that doesn't mean it is right. Just because most people think homos should be able to get married means nothing to me.

You can yell without bold or caps. Continued trolling is similar to trolling. What you feel or like does not matter.

It actually does matter. It would be a liberal's idea to restrict freedom of speech...

No one is restricting your speech to utter feelings that absolutely do not matter.

They do. I can vote and lobby.

So you now agree that no one is restricting your freedom of speech on marriage equality or anything else, only calling you out on it.

 

[bodecea]

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms.

Got it.

Incest is YOUR argument. But, I guess you're too lazy to start your own thread on it.

 

[Pop23]

Yep, no compelling government interest in denying them.

Go ahead, express the compelling state interest in denying same sex siblings from marriage.

You won't, you can't.

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

Not that it will, it must, at least as it persons to same sex siblings.

Again, if the USSC rules in favor of SSM, what compelling goverental interest is there in denying a same sex sibling couple the right to marry?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

All people of good will use Marriage Equality for all marriages, straight or gay. That you can't accept that this is happening means nothing at all.

It's not marriage unless it's between a man and woman. That's the fact and the way it was forever up until very recent history where liberal fags decided to attempt to redefine it. If you deny that then you're a fag.

Your feelings define nothing, kid.

It's not feelings. It's fact. Find gay marriages a long time ago. They didn't exist because no one ever thought that culture would become this immoral. It's so disgusting that no one even thought about it or considered it.

Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.

Well, maybe the second time, anyway...

And most certainly from the time we discovered what caused pregnancy.

Anal sex is popular among hetero couples for a lot of reasons. This is just one.

Apparently popular with young people as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms. Got it.

You want government in the bedroom, then.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.

The GOP doesn't need all the poor & working class voters that were once a part of the New Deal Coalition - they just need to capture enough of those voters in key regions, mainly in the South and Heartland. As I said, they use conservatism to convince certain voters in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky that Republican nominees care about religion, tradition and patriotism (rather than the narrow interests of the corporations and donors who fund their candidates and draft policy through lobbying pressure).

But obviously, to win the presidency you need more than outreach programs to rural conservatives, which is why Republicans have different communication patterns for wealthy libertarians (who are more concerned with tax, trade & regulatory policy than with the construction of a Big Moral Government which puts a priest at every bedside to save the souls of consenting adults who refuse to love each other in government sanctioned ways).

Please pay attention this time.

Both party's market themselves to their rich & poor constituencies, but the GOP's strategic use of conservatism (which went into overdrive w/Reagan's partnership w/the Moral Majority) allowed them to attract enough poor & working voters in the South and Heartland to tip the scales. Many of the poor and working class voters who defected from FDRs original New Deal Coalition were and are functioning members of society. Do you remember the Reagan Democrats, many of whom were northern catholic union workers in the rust belt? These were hard working people who were "turned off" by the Left's 60s anti-war, bra-burning, secularist, collectivist hippiedom.

Your point about the Left's support amongst welfare recipients is well taken (if tired and over-hyped), but you need to credit the Reagan Revolution's brilliance in using conservatism to peel off a huge number of disaffected working class democrats. These are not just "Red State Takers" who want government's hands off their medicare, but include a broader coalition of white lower income religious voters who supported the Left prior to its sixties transformation.

The fact is that conservative ideology appeals most to the actual working class. That's why most of them choose it. Poor people vote for welfare or because they're black and they think republicans hate them even though many are conservative. The people who have to deal with the increase in taxes and all the stupid shit the government does vote for the right party... The poor are going to stay poor regardless and the rich will stay rich but the middle is easier to change their lives.

 

[Pop23]

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms.

Got it.

Incest is YOUR argument. But, I guess you're too lazy to start your own thread on it.

Goin with the flow

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

It's not marriage unless it's between a man and woman. That's the fact and the way it was forever up until very recent history where liberal fags decided to attempt to redefine it. If you deny that then you're a fag.

Your feelings define nothing, kid.

It's not feelings. It's fact. Find gay marriages a long time ago. They didn't exist because no one ever thought that culture would become this immoral. It's so disgusting that no one even thought about it or considered it.

Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.

No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

I read the title and that was enough to realize that the article means nothing for your cause. It says that some historians believe that the unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. Then it proceeds to say one guy theorizes that it was sexual. Enough said.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.

The GOP doesn't need all the poor & working class voters that were once a part of the New Deal Coalition - they just need to capture enough of those voters in key regions, mainly in the South and Heartland. As I said, they use conservatism to convince certain voters in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky that Republican nominees care about religion, tradition and patriotism (rather than the narrow interests of the corporations and donors who fund their candidates and draft policy through lobbying pressure).

But obviously, to win the presidency you need more than outreach programs to rural conservatives, which is why Republicans have different communication patterns for wealthy libertarians (who are more concerned with tax, trade & regulatory policy than with the construction of a Big Moral Government which puts a priest at every bedside to save the souls of consenting adults who refuse to love each other in government sanctioned ways).

Please pay attention this time. Both party's market themselves to their rich & poor constituencies, but the GOP's strategic use of conservatism (which went into overdrive w/Reagan's partnership w/the Moral Majority) allowed them to attract enough poor & working voters in the South and Heartland to tip the scales. Many of the poor and working class voters who defected from FDRs original New Deal Coalition were and are functioning members of society. Do you remember the Reagan Democrats, many of whom were northern catholic union workers in the rust belt? These were hard working people who were "turned off" by the Left's 60s anti-war, bra-burning, secularist, collectivist hippiedom.

Your point about the Left's support amongst welfare recipients is well taken (if tired and over-hyped), but you need to credit the Reagan Revolution's brilliance in using conservatism to peel off a huge number of disaffected working class democrats. These are not just "Red State Takers" who want government's hands off their medicare, but include a broader coalition of white lower income religious voters who supported the Left prior to its sixties transformation.

Now sure what the advocacy was in all of that.

Suffice it to say, that there is an honest position to be found in considering the positions of the people who make the most jobs, who have the most to lose and to gain in government regulations.

But there is only ONE species of reasoning which seeks to incorporate business, with government. And THAT... is PROGRESSIVISM... and it does so, to capture those individuals who comprise the aforementioned: DO'ers. To use their money, to promote the acquisition of THEIR POWER.

Americans have power... because we are endowed by our creator with certain, inalienable rights. Meaning God is our power. And where God is with us, who can be against us that possess the means to injure us? Meaning we enjoy the authority of the Creator of the Universe and in that is awesome power.

What Americans crave is to be left alone. We have business to do, a living to make, children to raise and there's not a lot of time to concern ourselves with the addle-minded notions of the Ideological Left, wherein you invert every point of reasoning, flipping logic on its head, using the language as if it belongs exclusively to you, demanding; for instance that you're patriots, even as you advocate for issues that undermine the viability of the very nation you just claimed to 'vigorously support'.

So, what was your point?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Doesn't bother me, what I can't figure out is why you are opposed? There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason against SSSM that I can see. You got one, or not?

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms.

Got it.

This is very typical among very stupid liars:

First they ADMIT they're making it up = "I guess".

Then he says its fact.

I was very clear. I wrote "And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not yours."

And yes, IF between consenting adults, get Big Government out of our bedrooms and out of our private lives.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your feelings define nothing, kid.

It's not feelings. It's fact. Find gay marriages a long time ago. They didn't exist because no one ever thought that culture would become this immoral. It's so disgusting that no one even thought about it or considered it.

Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.

No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

I read the title and that was enough to realize that the article means nothing for your cause. It says that some historians believe that the unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. Then it proceeds to say one guy theorizes that it was sexual. Enough said.

You said same sex marriage never existed before.

I proved they did.

FACT: there is no such thing as "traditional", one man, one woman marriage.

Marriage has changed many times through history and it change many more times.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.

The GOP doesn't need all the poor & working class voters that were once a part of the New Deal Coalition - they just need to capture enough of those voters in key regions, mainly in the South and Heartland. As I said, they use conservatism to convince certain voters in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky that Republican nominees care about religion, tradition and patriotism (rather than the narrow interests of the corporations and donors who fund their candidates and draft policy through lobbying pressure).

But obviously, to win the presidency you need more than outreach programs to rural conservatives, which is why Republicans have different communication patterns for wealthy libertarians (who are more concerned with tax, trade & regulatory policy than with the construction of a Big Moral Government which puts a priest at every bedside to save the souls of consenting adults who refuse to love each other in government sanctioned ways).

Please pay attention this time. Both party's market themselves to their rich & poor constituencies, but the GOP's strategic use of conservatism (which went into overdrive w/Reagan's partnership w/the Moral Majority) allowed them to attract enough poor & working voters in the South and Heartland to tip the scales. Many of the poor and working class voters who defected from FDRs original New Deal Coalition were and are functioning members of society. Do you remember the Reagan Democrats, many of whom were northern catholic union workers in the rust belt? These were hard working people who were "turned off" by the Left's 60s anti-war, bra-burning, secularist, collectivist hippiedom.

Your point about the Left's support amongst welfare recipients is well taken (if tired and over-hyped), but you need to credit the Reagan Revolution's brilliance in using conservatism to peel off a huge number of disaffected working class democrats. These are not just "Red State Takers" who want government's hands off their medicare, but include a broader coalition of white lower income religious voters who supported the Left prior to its sixties transformation.

Now sure what the advocacy was in all of that.

Suffice it to say, that there is an honest position to be found in considering the positions of the people who make the most jobs, who have the most to lose and to gain in government regulations.

But there is only ONE species of reasoning which seeks to incorporate business, with government. And THAT... is PROGRESSIVISM... and it does so, to capture those individuals who comprise the aforementioned: DO'ers. To use their money, to promote the acquisition of THEIR POWER.

Americans have power... because we are endowed by our creator with certain, inalienable rights. Meaning God is our power. And where God is with us, who can be against us that possess the means to injure us? Meaning we enjoy the authority of the Creator of the Universe and in that is awesome power.

What Americans crave is to be left alone. We have business to do, a living to make, children to raise and there's not a lot of time to concern ourselves with the addle-minded notions of the Ideological Left, wherein you invert every point of reasoning, flipping logic on its head, using the language as if it belongs exclusively to you, demanding; for instance that you're patriots, even as you advocate for issues that undermine the viability of the very nation you just claimed to 'vigorously support'.

So, what was your point?

Reagan's economics provided for the fascistic union of government and business, which is certainly a form of Social Market Democracy. Of course, Keys may prefer unregulated (non-progressive) capitalism that would exploit children as well as all workers. Very relativistic and unChristian of Keys.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

It's not feelings. It's fact. Find gay marriages a long time ago. They didn't exist because no one ever thought that culture would become this immoral. It's so disgusting that no one even thought about it or considered it.

Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.

No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

I read the title and that was enough to realize that the article means nothing for your cause. It says that some historians believe that the unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. Then it proceeds to say one guy theorizes that it was sexual. Enough said.

You said same sex marriage never existed before.

I proved they did.

FACT: there is no such thing as "traditional", one man, one woman marriage.

Marriage has changed many times through history and it change many more times.

It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do. You're a moron who compares apples to oranges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys needs to follow someone's well made statement: "What Americans crave is to be left alone." Keys, leave others sexual ways and marriages to themselves. Son, it is not your business.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Did you not see the statistics that most poor people vote democrat? Also most poor people are uneducated so that completely derails the ignorant theory saying that educated people vote democrat. The truth is that educated people which pursue pointless careers are the ones who vote democrat. Not functioning members of society.

The GOP doesn't need all the poor & working class voters that were once a part of the New Deal Coalition - they just need to capture enough of those voters in key regions, mainly in the South and Heartland. As I said, they use conservatism to convince certain voters in places like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky that Republican nominees care about religion, tradition and patriotism (rather than the narrow interests of the corporations and donors who fund their candidates and draft policy through lobbying pressure).

But obviously, to win the presidency you need more than outreach programs to rural conservatives, which is why Republicans have different communication patterns for wealthy libertarians (who are more concerned with tax, trade & regulatory policy than with the construction of a Big Moral Government which puts a priest at every bedside to save the souls of consenting adults who refuse to love each other in government sanctioned ways).

Please pay attention this time.

Both party's market themselves to their rich & poor constituencies, but the GOP's strategic use of conservatism (which went into overdrive w/Reagan's partnership w/the Moral Majority) allowed them to attract enough poor & working voters in the South and Heartland to tip the scales. Many of the poor and working class voters who defected from FDRs original New Deal Coalition were and are functioning members of society. Do you remember the Reagan Democrats, many of whom were northern catholic union workers in the rust belt? These were hard working people who were "turned off" by the Left's 60s anti-war, bra-burning, secularist, collectivist hippiedom.

Your point about the Left's support amongst welfare recipients is well taken (if tired and over-hyped), but you need to credit the Reagan Revolution's brilliance in using conservatism to peel off a huge number of disaffected working class democrats. These are not just "Red State Takers" who want government's hands off their medicare, but include a broader coalition of white lower income religious voters who supported the Left prior to its sixties transformation.

The fact is that conservative ideology appeals most to the actual working class. That's why most of them choose it. Poor people vote for welfare or because they're black and they think republicans hate them even though many are conservative. The people who have to deal with the increase in taxes and all the stupid shit the government does vote for the right party... The poor are going to stay poor regardless and the rich will stay rich but the middle is easier to change their lives.

Wow. You really ARE ignorant.

The middle class is dying out. Its being killed by very stupid voters who insist on voting against their own best interests, the best interests of their children and of their country.

Republicans DO hate you. You are nothing more than a beast of burden and your job is to work for the 1%.